> Missionaries were responsible directly or indirectly for over a 100,000,000 dead precolumbians worldwide since the 1400s
I'm not sure of the verity of that particular figure (it's certainly a huge number, you're the right order of magnitude), but there's another similar one, with perpetrators from the same stem, that is less often raised. Tally every child that was born, suffered, starved, and died in India that need not have been born at all if contraception had not been blocked by the Catholic church. Even if amongst the hundreds of millions of sexually-active adults it would only be a few million each year, if you sum that over many decades, it's a number of similar magnitude when it comes to the number of unnecessary deaths. I was never popular for saying that Mother Theresa was one of the most evil people alive, but I do earnestly believe that it was true. (She even admitted feeling closer to god when she saw the suffering of others. That's psychotic and sociopathic.)
3. Scientology isolates members from nonmembers. This is ascribed to cults, not religions.
Scientology isolates? So scientology doesn't proselytise, and that free personality assessment I was offered as I walked down the high street was a figment of my imagination? And Tom Cruise has never been on the TV chat shows?
And I know plenty of isolationist Christians who send their children to church schools and certainly won't let them go on any holidays except with church groups or close Christian friends.
10. Scientology's structure is militarist / fascist and incompatible with democracy.
That's just babbling. There's plenty about the organisation of Catholicism that's no more "compatible with democracy" than Scientology. Having an *infallible* pope seems to be about the most dictatorial thing imaginable.
Because it's young. Give it 2-5 centuries to evolve and, if it survives, it will be indistinguishable from the ones you now like to contrast it against. There'll be some innocent-faced "yes, wrong was done in the past, but those weren't true scientologists, and they were selfishly and politically motivated - we're not like that now" whitewash PR.
Don't (4) and possibly (1) fail? If it grabs stuff that it wants, and is them prepared to serve it then (1) is definitely blown - it has already performed a transmission to itself of its own volition. Even if if only grabs the chunk on the first request from outside, then presumably one the proxy has a chunk, then it will keep a copy of it so that another client can grab it. And then (4) is blown out of the water.
The original known-for-such-great-insights-as-"solve the problem with batteries going flat by having spare charged batteries" poster did say "Now, 40% of the time, user D2 actually does have the file on their hard drive", which I think makes my assumptions fair. And his conclusions as bollocks as any other of his recent rubbish.
Try not to make an arse out of yourself. If you knew anything about probability distribution you'd know that "bell" isn't a distribution.
And that bell-curves used to represent a whole range of different distributions are parameterised by mean, standard deviation, and skew. There are higher moments too, but in extreme they can make the bell curve look less bell-like. No-one's ever said a log-normal distribution isn't a bell curve, for example.
And that the 50-th percentile of IQ is at 100, and that the lowest even for severely retarded slashdot posters such as yourself is about 50, and that there are significant proportions with over 150 and the highest is over 200. And therefore there the high out-liers do pull the mean up above the median. Which is what I said above.
When you puff yourself up and say that you've researched the field, and then completely fail to mention the single most important thing, then the implication is that either your research didn't cover such essentials or that you're crap at communicating what your research was in.
So we now know it was the latter, thanks for clarifying.
There's history. Humans aren't allowed to hand-edit URLs now, according to the US legal system. The first case I remember was someone going up a directory tree, and then playing clicky with the other directories he found.
In that case, and this, every single 'GET' request they were complaining about was one which was responded to with data, not a 403 (or other) error. In my view, as someone with a technological bent, that means that their webserver had vetted the request, and decided that the access was authorised. And therefore not 'unauthorised'.
Due to the lack of any consideration, this isn't contract law. But you're right, it certainly shouldn't be criminal to edit a URL, or to accept (which is what the client does) what is freely offered (which is what the server does). The courts don't seem to understand that *the server is in control*, it is *responsible for everything that gets transmitted* - that's its sole job.
That assumes no skew. If you'd said "median", you'd be right. Assuming a small minority of bright sparks are pulling up the average, the bell-curve will be skewed to the left, and more than half of the population will be below the mean intelligence level. (I've made some assumption about what the curve really looks like, but I know similar logic applies to income levels, where a few mega-earners again pull up the mean.)
You had a job researching the topic, and you never considered a situation where there's more than one AP? The state of "research" seems to have gone desperately downhill in recent years.
The protected-mode 386 era. MS, Borland, and Zortech had advanced far enough to give you the 32-bit integers that your registers could cope with, but were too frightened, for several reasons, to offer you a 64-bit long.
Is is understandable that an OS would come with a package management system. It is understandable that package management systems could have a DB backend. => It's understandable that a database might be part of the OS.
Even if it's not noticeably so (i.e. not a standalone package) then there's almost certainly an ad-hoc one hiding in a statically linked library anyway. Which is the less preferable option, IMHO, there's really no need to roll-your-own DBMS any more.
His sig says "Internet Python Users Group (iPyUG.com)", which looks like a pretty standard BB that doesn't like my choice of browser (well, my lack of javascript), and not a heavy user of databases. So I'm still not really bursting with confidence that his recommendation is a good one.
How can you say Eliza has both "very simple grammar manipulator" and "No pattern recognition" with a straight face? The grammar being manipulated *is* the pattern that's recognised. Certainly it is very rudimentary, but it's not non-existent.
Indeed. The headline seems as dumb as "porn dooms human species".
No, actually; just because they show lots of people jizzing on tits doesn't mean the intelligent, or at least randy, members of the species will lose the ability to procreate.
> Even if the term "precedent" is being used as a non-legal-term-of-art, it still doesn't apply; one of the principal distinguishing characteristics of civil law...
WOHHHHH!!! Stop there. What bit about not imbuing any law-related implications on the term are you misunderstanding? Maybe you should put down your law-books, they're clearly clouding your mind, and just look at an English-language dictionary for a definition of the word:
PRECEDENT n. 1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
And given that 24 hours on the clock represents the length of human civilisation's time on the face of planet earth, how long does 5 minutes represent?
I had some spare time today, and was watching a few of the live GM games in the Tata Steel tournament. The computerkibitz function was quite enlightening, even the best in the world quite often deviated from what the computer thought was best. Which doesn't mean they're wrong at all, of course, for the reasons you state.
(Though to be honest, I'm not really a chess fan, I just wish eevn a fraction of the time, effort, and money, were ploughed into other abstract strategy games.)
Slashdot Mirror
> Missionaries were responsible directly or indirectly for over a 100,000,000 dead precolumbians worldwide since the 1400s
I'm not sure of the verity of that particular figure (it's certainly a huge number, you're the right order of magnitude), but there's another similar one, with perpetrators from the same stem, that is less often raised. Tally every child that was born, suffered, starved, and died in India that need not have been born at all if contraception had not been blocked by the Catholic church. Even if amongst the hundreds of millions of sexually-active adults it would only be a few million each year, if you sum that over many decades, it's a number of similar magnitude when it comes to the number of unnecessary deaths. I was never popular for saying that Mother Theresa was one of the most evil people alive, but I do earnestly believe that it was true. (She even admitted feeling closer to god when she saw the suffering of others. That's psychotic and sociopathic.)
So they never noticed the uniforms? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
3. Scientology isolates members from nonmembers. This is ascribed to cults, not religions.
Scientology isolates?
So scientology doesn't proselytise, and that free personality assessment I was offered as I walked down the high street was a figment of my imagination? And Tom Cruise has never been on the TV chat shows?
And I know plenty of isolationist Christians who send their children to church schools and certainly won't let them go on any holidays except with church groups or close Christian friends.
10. Scientology's structure is militarist / fascist and incompatible with democracy.
That's just babbling. There's plenty about the organisation of Catholicism that's no more "compatible with democracy" than Scientology. Having an *infallible* pope seems to be about the most dictatorial thing imaginable.
Because it's young. Give it 2-5 centuries to evolve and, if it survives, it will be indistinguishable from the ones you now like to contrast it against. There'll be some innocent-faced "yes, wrong was done in the past, but those weren't true scientologists, and they were selfishly and politically motivated - we're not like that now" whitewash PR.
Don't (4) and possibly (1) fail?
If it grabs stuff that it wants, and is them prepared to serve it then (1) is definitely blown - it has already performed a transmission to itself of its own volition.
Even if if only grabs the chunk on the first request from outside, then presumably one the proxy has a chunk, then it will keep a copy of it so that another client can grab it. And then (4) is blown out of the water.
The original known-for-such-great-insights-as-"solve the problem with batteries going flat by having spare charged batteries" poster did say "Now, 40% of the time, user D2 actually does have the file on their hard drive", which I think makes my assumptions fair. And his conclusions as bollocks as any other of his recent rubbish.
Try not to make an arse out of yourself. If you knew anything about probability distribution you'd know that "bell" isn't a distribution.
And that bell-curves used to represent a whole range of different distributions are parameterised by mean, standard deviation, and skew. There are higher moments too, but in extreme they can make the bell curve look less bell-like. No-one's ever said a log-normal distribution isn't a bell curve, for example.
And that the 50-th percentile of IQ is at 100, and that the lowest even for severely retarded slashdot posters such as yourself is about 50, and that there are significant proportions with over 150 and the highest is over 200. And therefore there the high out-liers do pull the mean up above the median. Which is what I said above.
When you puff yourself up and say that you've researched the field, and then completely fail to mention the single most important thing, then the implication is that either your research didn't cover such essentials or that you're crap at communicating what your research was in.
So we now know it was the latter, thanks for clarifying.
There's history. Humans aren't allowed to hand-edit URLs now, according to the US legal system. The first case I remember was someone going up a directory tree, and then playing clicky with the other directories he found.
In that case, and this, every single 'GET' request they were complaining about was one which was responded to with data, not a 403 (or other) error. In my view, as someone with a technological bent, that means that their webserver had vetted the request, and decided that the access was authorised. And therefore not 'unauthorised'.
Due to the lack of any consideration, this isn't contract law. But you're right, it certainly shouldn't be criminal to edit a URL, or to accept (which is what the client does) what is freely offered (which is what the server does). The courts don't seem to understand that *the server is in control*, it is *responsible for everything that gets transmitted* - that's its sole job.
That assumes no skew. If you'd said "median", you'd be right. Assuming a small minority of bright sparks are pulling up the average, the bell-curve will be skewed to the left, and more than half of the population will be below the mean intelligence level. (I've made some assumption about what the curve really looks like, but I know similar logic applies to income levels, where a few mega-earners again pull up the mean.)
> the AP ... the AP ... the AP ... the AP ... the AP
You had a job researching the topic, and you never considered a situation where there's more than one AP? The state of "research" seems to have gone desperately downhill in recent years.
I'm sure Wallace and Grommit did.
Everything from digital watches to smartphones, for a start.
The protected-mode 386 era. MS, Borland, and Zortech had advanced far enough to give you the 32-bit integers that your registers could cope with, but were too frightened, for several reasons, to offer you a 64-bit long.
> the Y2.038K problem
The S2Gi problem, surely?
But is his spare ass fully charged?
> Bad reporting by Phoronix
;-)
-1 redundant (but the rest of your post is +1 insightful, don't worry)
Is is understandable that an OS would come with a package management system.
It is understandable that package management systems could have a DB backend.
=> It's understandable that a database might be part of the OS.
Even if it's not noticeably so (i.e. not a standalone package) then there's almost certainly an ad-hoc one hiding in a statically linked library anyway. Which is the less preferable option, IMHO, there's really no need to roll-your-own DBMS any more.
His sig says "Internet Python Users Group (iPyUG.com)", which looks like a pretty standard BB that doesn't like my choice of browser (well, my lack of javascript), and not a heavy user of databases. So I'm still not really bursting with confidence that his recommendation is a good one.
How can you say Eliza has both "very simple grammar manipulator" and "No pattern recognition" with a straight face? The grammar being manipulated *is* the pattern that's recognised. Certainly it is very rudimentary, but it's not non-existent.
Indeed. The headline seems as dumb as "porn dooms human species".
No, actually; just because they show lots of people jizzing on tits doesn't mean the intelligent, or at least randy, members of the species will lose the ability to procreate.
> Even if the term "precedent" is being used as a non-legal-term-of-art, it still doesn't apply; one of the principal distinguishing characteristics of civil law ...
WOHHHHH!!! Stop there. What bit about not imbuing any law-related implications on the term are you misunderstanding? Maybe you should put down your law-books, they're clearly clouding your mind, and just look at an English-language dictionary for a definition of the word:
PRECEDENT n.
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
Case closed.
And given that 24 hours on the clock represents the length of human civilisation's time on the face of planet earth, how long does 5 minutes represent?
Just Bing it!
Oh gawd, I hate being so wrong...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21009301
I had some spare time today, and was watching a few of the live GM games in the Tata Steel tournament. The computerkibitz function was quite enlightening, even the best in the world quite often deviated from what the computer thought was best. Which doesn't mean they're wrong at all, of course, for the reasons you state.
(Though to be honest, I'm not really a chess fan, I just wish eevn a fraction of the time, effort, and money, were ploughed into other abstract strategy games.)